Says who? Setting the agenda on global
education in development conferences
Madison Paige COAKLEY
Dissertation for Master in Development Studies
Specialization: Mobilities, Spaces and Cities (Education)
L’Institut de hautes études internationales et du développement
Geneva Graduate Institute
Geneva, Switzerland
June 2023
Supervised by: Chanwoong BAEK
Second reader: Cyrus SCHAYEGH
Abstract: The Global South is vastly underrepresented in international development. Previous
research has highlighted the lack of Southern scholars in research and academia, as well as in
the field of international development. This research expands on previous investigations by
examining the representation of the Global South in development conferences, particularly in
the field of education development. Through an analysis of events held between 2019 and 2021
by UNESCO-IBE, the OECD Education and Skills division, and the WBG Education division,
this research uncovers that an average of 1 in 4 speakers represented a Global South country in
events. Given the influential role of these organizations in shaping international education
policy, this research emphasizes the need for greater efforts to amplify the voices and
contributions of Southern scholars in education development. By addressing historical legacies
of colonialism and challenging the dominance of Global North countries in knowledge
production, these organizations can foster inclusivity and promote a more equitable
representation of perspectives in the field of education development.
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
2
Table of Contents
List of Tables and Figures
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acknowledgements
I. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………6
II. Terminology…………………………………………………………………………7
A. The “Global South” ...……………………………………………………………7
B. Who are the “developing” in “development” studies? …..………………………8
III. Literature…….……………………………………………………...………………8
A. South-North divide in research and academia…………....………………………9
B. South-North divide in access to research…………....……………………..……10
C. Representation of the Global South in development…………...…………..……12
D. COVID-19…….………..………………………………………...……………...13
IV. Methodology…….…………………………………………………...……………..15
A. Theoretical approach…………………………...…....……………………..……15
B. Data collection approach………………..……...…....……………………..……16
i. Finding events………..……...…..............................................................16
ii. Finding individuals…...……...…..............................................................17
iii. Defining the Global South……………………….………………………18
iv. Determining whether a speaker is representative of the Global South......18
C. Organizations…….……...………………………………………...……………..18
i. UNESCO-IBE…...……...….....................................................................18
ii. OECD Education and Skills…...……...…................................................19
iii. WBG Education…...……...…...................................................................20
D. Sample size…….……...………………………………………...…………….....21
V. Results…….……...……………………………....…………………...……………..21
A. UNESCO-IBE…….……..………………………………………...……………..21
B. OECD Education and Skills…….……...….……………………...……………..24
C. WBG Education…….……...….…………………….....................……………...27
D. A comparative look at Global South representation across events held by
UNESCO-IBE, OECD Education and Skills, and WBG Education between 2019
and 2021…….……...….……………………................................……………...29
E. Data Anomalies…….……...….…………………….....................……………...30
VI. Discussion……………………...……………………………………………………32
A. Governance…….……...….…………………….....................……………..........32
B. Analysis…….……...….…………………………….....................……………...33
VII. Limitations………………………………………………………………………….34
VIII. Conclusions………………………………………...……………………………….36
A. Recommendations….……...….…………………….....................……………...37
Bibliography
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
3
List of Tables and Figures
Figures:
Figure 1: UNESCO-IBE: Global South countries represented at development conferences in
2019
Figure 2: UNESCO-IBE: Global South countries represented at development conferences in
2020
Figure 3: UNESCO-IBE: Global South countries represented at development conferences in
2021
Figure 4: OECD Education and Skills: Global South countries represented at development
conferences in 2019
Figure 5: OECD Education and Skills: Global South countries represented at development
conferences in 2020
Figure 6: OECD Education and Skills: Global South countries represented at development
conferences in 2021
Figure 7: WBG Education: Global South countries represented at development conferences in
2019
Figure 8: WBG Education: Global South countries represented at development conferences in
2020
Figure 9: WBG Education: Global South countries represented at development conferences in
2021
Figure 10: UNESCO-IBE search results
Figure 11: Webinar not available
Tables:
Table 1: Results
Table 2: Results (excluding data anomalies)
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
4
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AAS American Astronomical Society
ADB African Development Bank
AEC African Economic Conference
BRICS Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa
CERI Centre for Educational Research and Innovation
COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019
DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
ECE Early Childhood Education
ECR Early Career Researcher
EFF Education Fast Forward
FWE Forum for World Education
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GNP Gross National Product
HDI Human Development Index
IBE International Bureau of Education
ICLR International Conferences on Learning Representations
IMCC International Marine Conservation Congress
IO International Organization
ISAE International Society for Applied Ethology
JCR Journal Citation Reports
LDC Least Developed Country
L1 First language
MES Ministry of Education
NAMS North American Membrane Society
NORRAG Network for International Policies and Cooperation in
Education
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development
PI Principal Investigator
PIAAC Programme for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies
PISA Programme for International Student Assessment
TALIS Teaching and Learning International Survey
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
US United States
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization
VET Vocational Education and Training
WBG World Bank Group
WCCES World Council of Comparative Education Societies
WoS Web of Science
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
5
Acknowledgements
I would first like to acknowledge NORRAG for inspiring the topic of my dissertation.
NORRAG research, and my former colleagues, particularly Moira Faul and my dissertation
supervisor, Chanwoong Baek, have strongly influenced my work and fueled my passion to
pursue a career in the field of education development. I would also like to acknowledge Amy
Thorpe, my closest friend and a talented journalist who edited my dissertation, in addition to
several pieces of writing I produced during my Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees. Bushra
Asghar and Thomas Batzel have also been of considerable sources of support throughout my
writing process. I am particularly grateful to my friend Utkarsh Uprety, who not only assisted
me in data collection for this research but also edited my writing and provided unwavering
support to reach the finish line.
I would like to dedicate my thesis to my mother, Dorothy Coakley, and my sister, Bren
Coakley. While my mother did not complete any form of higher education, she has
consistently supported me in my pursuits. My mother always understood the value of
education, and despite not having completed a degree, she ensured my sister and I did. This
dissertation, which serves as the culmination of my past six years of higher education, is for
her. I would also like to express how proud I am of my mother, who has recently returned to
education to complete an Executive Education course in her field. My thesis is also dedicated
to my younger sister, who I am equally proud of and who is about to embark on her final year
of her Bachelor’s studies.
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
6
I. Introduction
Southern voices are vastly underrepresented in development. Despite the fact that most work
in development takes place in the Global South, the voices of individuals from the Global
North are better represented in the field. In research and academia, scholars from the Global
South are far less likely to be published or cited. Graham et al. (2011) analyzed references
from over 9,500 journals in the sciences and social sciences and found that more journals are
indexed from the United States and the United Kingdom than the rest of the world combined.
A significant disparity also exists between scholars from the Global South and the Global
North regarding their participation in conferences. Based on data from seven well-reputed
international development conferences held between 2010 and 2019, Amarante et al. (2021)
found that only 9% of papers presented at these conferences were authored by Southern
researchers. In this same study, Amarante et al. (2021) observed that only one out of seven
conferences was held in a Global South country. The lack of Global South representation in
development extends to education development, wherein Southern countries have
consistently been “portrayed as lacking the technical and professional expertise that would
contribute to what are supposed to be “modern” models of educational development,”
resulting in marginalization in scholarship and discourse in the field (Smith & Sargent, 2022).
The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought about unprecedented
disruptions worldwide. During the period from 2019 to 2021, international conferences and
events underwent a significant transition to online platforms. This shift not only ensured the
continuity of conferences but also presented new prospects for fostering inclusivity,
accessibility, and diversity in participation.
This research aims to shed light on the representation, or the lack thereof, of scholars
from the Global South within international organizations dedicated to education
development. The focus of this study is on the participation of Global South scholars in
development conferences, which serve as critical arenas for the dissemination of research and
knowledge in the field, often with the objective of shaping international education policy. Of
particular interest is the examination of the representation of Global South scholars in
development conferences both prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
For the purpose of this research, I investigate events held between the years 2019 and
2021 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO)
International Bureau of Education (IBE), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development’s (OECD) Education and Skills division, and the World Bank Group’s (WBG)
Education division. This research considers the composition of speakers at global conferences
and seeks to understand the extent to which Global South scholars are ultimately present in
ongoing policy debates in education.
This study aims to contribute to the Network for International Policies and
Cooperation in Education (NORRAG) new initiative called #TheSouthAlsoKnows, which
strives to amplify the voices of Global South scholars in education and address the
imbalanced flow of expertise and decision-making from the North to the South (NORRAG,
2023).
Beginning with an introduction to important terminology used in this research, I
define terms such as the “Global South” and “development,” addressing the historical and
present-day implications of the terms. The following section presents literature relevant to
this research and concludes with justifications for the purpose of this study. Next, I present
my theoretical and data collection approach to this research in the Methodology section
before presenting my findings. Then, I discuss my results and offer my recommendations as
to how the organizations selected for this study can better foster inclusivity of the Global
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
7
South in the field of education development.
II. Terminology
In this section, I define certain terminology used throughout this research. I define the terms I
use by contextualizing them in history and the present-day. The goal of defining terminology
is to offer insight into the evolution of certain terms which are often discussed in the field of
development, as well as to critique them according to their usefulness in the present.
A. The “Global South”
The concept of the “Global South” emerged during the post-Cold War era as part of the Third
World Project, which aimed to foster solidarity among independent nations (Kalter, 2017).
Initially, the term “Third World” was used to refer to countries outside Western Europe and
the United States (US), with the latter considering themselves the “First World” based on
Eurocentric ideologies (Kalter, 2017). What Mahler (2017) describes as a “metaphor for
global relations of inequity and as microcosms of the oppression suffered under transnational
forms of racial capital,” also known as the “Third World,” was later replaced by the term
“Global South.”
The first mention of the “South” in the context of development was made by the
United Nations (UN) in the mid-20th century (Haug, 2021). Over time, the term expanded to
encompass geopolitical and economic realities, moving beyond a narrow “focus on
development or cultural differences” between the North and South (Dados & Connell, 2012).
At present, the term “Global South” references “an entire history of colonialism, neo-
imperialism, and the differential economic and social changes” that perpetuate significant
disparities in living standards, life expectancy, and access to resources (Dados & Connell,
2012). The definition and geographic boundaries of the “Global South” vary depending on
the criteria used, but the term generally includes countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and
Oceania. However, it is important to bear in mind that the term is not all-encompassing.
Several highly developed nations are located in the global southern hemisphere, such as
Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore, which are not considered part of the “Global South.”
It is also important to note that the term “Global South” can refer to countries that are less
economically developed, socially disadvantaged, or both. One common definition of the
Global South is all non-OECD countries. Although the organization has expanded to include
some countries in Asia and Latin America as member states, the OECD is primarily made up
of wealthy European and North American nations, thus this definition is generally a sensible
way of distinguishing between the Global North and Global South. Other popular ways of
defining the Global South include using the World Bank’s classifications of low- or middle-
income countries or looking at human development classifications based on the Human
Development Index (HDI), which ranks a country’s level of development based on a number
of factors related to life expectancy, education, and living standards.
Nonetheless, in recent years, the term “Global South” has faced criticism for being
outdated in its portrayal of less developed countries (Mahler, 2017). Critics argue that there
are multiple “Souths in the geographic North and Norths in the geographic South,”
highlighting the evolving dynamics of global power structures and development trajectories
(Mahler, 2017). The conventional narrative of the South catching up with the North no longer
adequately captures the nature of global power dynamics and development trends. Horner
(2019) explains:
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
8
Northern countries may actually be evolving southward, thereby upending the
developmentalist trajectory of countries in the South playing catch-up to those in the
North. Comaroff & Comaroff have argued that ‘contemporary world historical
processes are visibly altering received geographies of core-and-periphery, relocating
southward not only some of the most innovative and energetic modes of producing
value, but [operating as] the driving impulse of contemporary capitalism as both a
material and cultural formation’ (2012).
As “there is much South in the North, much North in the South, and…. more of both to come
in the future,” the growing interconnectedness and blurring of traditional boundaries around
the world raises doubts about the value and relevance of categorizing countries into the
Global South and the Global North (Horner, 2019). While evolving global realities
necessitate the assessment of the usefulness of the concept of the Global South, I have chosen
to employ it for the purpose of this research.
B. Who are the “developing” in “development” studies?
The terms “development” and “developing” country carry significant implications which are
also important to address in this research. Many of the presently “developing” countries are
former colonies. While using the term “developing” country, it is important to keep in mind
how historical experiences of colonization have shaped the current socio-economic
conditions in most Global South countries. Legacies of colonialism, including resource
extraction, exploitation, and cultural domination, have had lasting effects on the development
trajectories of “developing” countries. At the same time, the field of “development” exists
largely as a byproduct of colonialism and maintains a knowledge hierarchy that has
perpetuated Western-centric perspectives wherein knowledge flows from the Global North to
the Global South.
Post-colonial and post-development approaches have examined the North-South
binary and its geographical constructions of difference (Said, 1979). Scholars, such as
Escobar (1995), have highlighted the social construction of Asia, Africa, and Latin America
as the “Third World” and how it served as a powerful apparatus of control. The notion of a
“developed” West and a “developing” rest was used to justify intervening to aid developing
countries (Kothari, 2005). The work of scholars, like Said and Escobar, challenge
Eurocentrism inherent in “development” studies (Chakrabarty, 2000) and confront
assumptions of Western superiority (Lawson, 2007). It is important to deconstruct the binary
and also recognize the Global North as a site of development studies research, considering
that the many themes of development studies pertinent to both the Global North and the
Global South (Horner, 2019; Radcliffe, 2005; Lawson, 2007). As discussed in Maxwell
(1998), themes such as poverty reduction, political development, governance, gender
inequality, social capital, and social exclusion are still relevant to many countries in both the
Global North and the Global South.
While I use the terms “developing” and “development” throughout this research, I do
so with consideration for the implications they carry which I have discussed here.
III. Literature
In this section, I present the literature which informs my knowledge on topics including the
South-North divide in research and academia and the South-North divide in access to
research. I also present previous research into the representation of the Global South in the
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
9
field of development, considering the field of education development, in particular.
A. South-North divide in research and academia
Southern scholars are significantly underrepresented in the realm of research and academia.
This phenomenon has been documented on numerous occasions by researchers. For example,
Graham et al. (2011) mapped the distribution of academic knowledge throughout the world.
Analyzing data from the Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Reports (JCR) based on
references from over 9,500 journals in the sciences and social sciences, the study revealed a
substantial disparity in journal indexing between the US, the United Kingdom (UK), and the
rest of the world combined (Graham et al., 2011). Western European countries accounted for
the majority of publications outside of the US and the UK, while Global South countries were
vastly underrepresented. Strikingly, publications from Switzerland alone were indexed more
than three times as frequently as those from the entire continent of Africa (Graham et al.,
2011). Research by Das et al. (2013) demonstrated that the research output of countries is
closely linked to their per-capita gross domestic product (GDP). Countries with higher GDP
tend to have a more significant research output, further exacerbating the inequality in
knowledge production and dissemination. This is also true for countries with higher levels of
human development. Cummings & Hoebink (2017) delved into the connection between a
country’s ranking on the Human Development Index (HDI) and its research output.
Examining data collected from the Web of Science (WoS) database and journal websites of
well-known academic journals between 2012 and 2014, the study explored the representation
of scholars from developing countries as authors in scientific journals. With a sample of
2,112 articles, Cummings & Hoebink found that 43% of authors were from the UK or the US,
43% were from countries with high human development, and only 14% were from
developing countries (2017).
Within Africa, research output is not only low but also heavily skewed. Tijssen (2007)
reported a decline in Africa’s contribution to global knowledge production, particularly in
Sub-Saharan Africa. The share of global science publications from Sub-Saharan Africa
decreased from 1% in 1987 to 0.7% in 1996, representing a significant decline with no sign
of recovery (Tijssen, 2007). South Africa and Egypt dominated the publication landscape,
accounting for a considerable proportion of African publications in international journals
during the period from 1996 to 2004 (Tijssen, 2007). South Africa contributed to over 31% of
the publications, while Egypt accounted for 52% (Tijssen, 2007).
At the same time, there is a lack of collaboration and co-publication between
researchers from the Global South and their counterparts in the Global North. Dahdouh-
Guebas et al. (2003) explored this issue by examining research carried out in the world’s
Least Developed Countries (LDCs) in cooperation with research institutions located in these
countries. Analyzing the Current Contents database of over 7,000 scientific journals, they
found that the majority of published papers originated from research institutions in the Global
North, with a significant absence of co-authorship with research institutions in LDCs
(Dahdouh-Guebas et al., 2003). South-North collaborations were far less frequent than North-
North collaborations (Dahdouh-Guebas et al., 2003). In addition to low representation and
co-publication rates in academic journals, southern scholars were also less likely to be cited
and less likely to serve on editorial boards of prestigious journals (Amarante et al., 2021;
Cummings & Hoebink, 2017; Chelwa, 2019). These patterns have further perpetuated the
imbalance and marginalization faced by scholars from the Global South.
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
10
B. South-North divide in access to research
Southern scholars face several structural barriers that hinder their ability to contribute and
gain visibility for their expertise and knowledge on a global scale. As most well-known and
reputable journals are dominated by staff from the Global North, particularly from
Anglophone countries like the US and the UK, the majority of publications in these journals
are authored by scholars from Northern Anglophone countries. Previous research has shed
light on the South-North divide in academia and research, emphasizing the persistence of
structural barriers that reinforce the Global North as the primary center of global knowledge
dissemination.
The linguistic hegemony of English further perpetuates the South-North divide in the
field of development. English dominates academia and research, serving as the lingua franca
across most disciplines, including the social sciences. Highly regarded peer-reviewed journals
are predominantly English-only, and previous studies have highlighted the increasing
concentration of gatekeeping power held by these journals. There is a clear need for more
multilingual publications and authors to address this issue (Belcher, 2007). Scholars often
feel compelled to write and publish in English, as described by non-native English speakers
from Spain in Martín et al. (2014):
The desire to communicate the results of their research to the members of the
international scientific community was the main motivation for scholars (88.1%)...
followed by the aspiration for widespread recognition of their work (86.9%), the need
to meet professional promotion requirements (79.8%), and the aim of obtaining more
citations (73.8%).
English-medium journals offer greater opportunities for research promotion and funding for
scholars (Martín et al., 2014). They also tend to offer higher salaries, providing additional
motivation for non-native English speakers to publish in English (Martín et al., 2014).
In addition to writing in English, non-native English speakers are also expected to
communicate with a level of proficiency that mirrors that of native speakers in order to have
their work accepted in English-medium journals. Ken Hyland, who served as editor for two
applied linguistics journals for over two decades, acknowledges that papers written in “poor
English” are highly unlikely to be published (Hyland, 2016). Martín et al. (2014) conducted a
survey of Spanish scholars, using the Lichter scale to assess their concerns related to
publishing in English. The surveyed scholars ranked the fear of making grammatical and
rhetorical mistakes, the fear of not presenting results of significant interest to the journal’s
readers, and the fear of perceived flaws in research design as the top reasons why they might
hesitate to submit a paper for publication (Martín et al., 2014).
While all authors face the challenge of presenting a well-designed study on a current
topic in a manner that adheres to readers’ expectations of sound argumentation in order to be
published, Hyland explains that research design and rhetoric are the most influential factors
in a well-written paper (2016). Studies have shown that those whose writing deviates from
the widely accepted discourse norms of the international English-speaking community, such
as syntax or features influenced by their first language (L1), are significantly less likely to
have their work published compared to those whose writing aligns with these norms (Martín
et al., 2014).
Despite this additional challenge, some argue that native English speakers do not
possess a significant advantage over non-native speakers, as both groups are held to the same
standard in terms of demonstrating “academic literacy” (Ferguson et al., 2011). For instance,
Ferguson et al. (2011) contend that native English speakers must also exhibit academic
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
11
literacy in their writing to have their work published. However, it is important to
acknowledge that Southern scholars continue to be underrepresented in research, despite their
efforts to meet the expectations of English-medium journals.
The dominance of the English language in academia and research has led to a
noticeable disparity in publications between non-native English speakers and native speakers.
Concurrently, this phenomenon has positioned certain English-speaking Global South
countries as regional producers of knowledge. A study by Tijssen (2007), examining African
contributions to international research from 1980 to 2004, revealed that South Africa and
Kenya were “clearly out-performing” other African countries “in terms of average citation
rates, the share of publications cited, and field-normalized citation scores.” Tijssen argues
that this achievement “is partly a cultural heritage from their English-language science
systems that help sustain or enhance their visibility in English-language-dominated
international research literature” (2007).
Besides a language barrier which is exclusionary of non-native English speakers,
southern scholars face other structural barriers to publishing, such as the costs associated with
the peer-review and publishing process. Even though Kenya is one of the nations with the
most publications from Africa (Tijssen, 2007), relative to the rest of the world, Kenyan
scholars do not often publish research in internationally refereed journals (Mweru, 2010).
Low salaries and a lack of resources are cited as some of the primary reasons for which
Kenyans do not publish more literature in international journals (Mweru, 2010). Assuming
these barriers in many countries exist across sub-Saharan Africa, this might also contribute to
the reason why even when the topic of an article is directly related to an issue relevant to sub-
Sahran Africa, “an examination of most of the highly ranked journals reveals that few, if any,
articles are published by academics from sub-Saharan African universities” (Mweru, 2010).
Another significant barrier faced by Southern scholars in publishing is limited access
to research. Southern scholars often lack the same level of access to research as their
Northern counterparts. While Global North scholars can freely access open-source research,
Southern scholars frequently encounter challenges in accessing the same information, often
having to rely on specialized portals or proxy servers (Cockerill & Knolls, 2008). Access to
well-established journals is typically facilitated at an institutional level, but Southern scholars
often face hurdles in navigating “complex authorization schemes” (Cockerill & Knolls,
2008). The difficulties in accessing recent and relevant journal articles and books are cited as
primary reasons why African scholars, for example, are less likely to publish in international
journals (Mweru, 2010). Limited access to predominantly outdated information puts Southern
scholars at a disadvantage when competing with Northern scholars for international
publication. Consequently, Southern scholars are more inclined to publish in lesser-known,
open-access regional journals (Cockerill & Knolls., 2008). Unfortunately, such journals
typically have limited circulation, resulting in poor visibility and readership (Cockerill &
Knolls., 2008). This, in turn, leads to limited recognition, few citations, and a lack of
authorship, subscriptions, and circulation (Cockerill & Knolls., 2008). Thus, many scholars
from the Global South remain “off-networked” and are excluded from active participation in
international scholarship and research, although there are signs of change (Swales, 2004).
Cockerill & Knolls (2008) underscore the significance of global accessibility in
research. An illustrative example is the transformation of the renowned medical journal
MedKnow, which was formerly inaccessible without a paid subscription. However, since
adopting an open-access model, the journal has fostered a “circle of accessibility,” enabling
developing countries to access crucial international knowledge on medicine and medical
practices (Cockerill & Knolls, 2008). Open access research serves as a conduit for connecting
researchers from the Global South with the international research community and
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
12
disseminating knowledge from the Global South to a global audience. Encouragingly, global
accessibility to research is progressively increasing. Lund University in Sweden established
the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), which tracks the substantial rise in the
number of journals offering immediate open access to all research articles. Among the 2,700
journals listed in the DOAJ, a considerable fraction originates from developing countries,
including 222 journals from Brazil and 87 based in India (Cockerill & Knolls, 2008).
Initiatives like Bioline, a collaborative Brazilian-Canadian project, have facilitated the
free online availability of articles from journals in 24 low-income countries. The project has
witnessed a significant surge in the annual number of downloads of full-text articles from its
website, from a mere 27,000 in 2000 to 2.5 million in 2006 (Cockerill & Knolls, 2008). This
increased traffic spans both developing and developed countries, emphasizing the capacity of
open access to foster a connected community of researchers across different nations
(Cockerill & Knolls, 2008). Nevertheless, there remains a pressing need to further enhance
global research access. Cockerill & Knolls (2008) emphasize that “the simplest and most
reliable way to ensure that knowledge is available where and when it is needed is to avoid
access barriers altogether through a universal open-access model.”
C. Representation of the Global South in development
As previously established, there exists a notable discrepancy in the representation of scholars
from the Global South and the Global North across academic and research domains, along
with a significant disparity in research accessibility. This holds true in the field of
development, where much of the work takes place in the Global South. Southern scholars are
significantly underrepresented in development research.
In a study conducted by Amarante et al. (2021), researchers examined the
representation of scholars from developing countries in three key areas: publications in
development journals, citations in development journals, and participation in development
conferences. Regarding publications in development journals, the authors investigated
submissions and published papers in four development journals with varying reputations. The
study revealed that submissions from Southern researchers accounted for a range of 39% to
63% across all journals. However, only 16% of the published papers were authored by
Southern researchers, while 73% were authored by Northern researchers (Amarante et al.,
2021). The remaining papers were collaborative efforts between scholars from the Global
South and the Global North. Additionally, analyzing the Elsevier Scopus database from 1990
to 2019, Amarante et al. found a statistically significant difference in the frequency of
citations received by Southern researchers compared to their Northern counterparts in the top
20 development journals (2021). Another study conducted by Chelwa (2020) echoed these
findings, revealing that a significant number of papers on Africa, without a single African-
based author, were written by North American authors, with Europe following closely
behind. Despite the majority of developing countries being located in the Global South, the
literature on development and developing countries is disproportionately dominated by the
voice of Northern scholars. This also holds true in the field of education development.
In education, “Countries in the Global South have been marginalized and portrayed as
lacking the technical and professional expertise that would contribute to what are supposed to
be “modern” models of educational development.” (Smith & Sargent, 2022). The Global
South has been marginalized and excluded “from forums where policy decisions impacting
education and democratic development are made. They have been treated as subjects to be
discussed and decisions have been made on their behalf as to what educational model would
be suitable for them. The establishment of a modern educational system has aimed to correct
their primitivities and deficiencies, and socialize citizens of the Global South to what are
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
13
supposed to be ‘modern ideals”’ (Smith & Sargent, 2022). This lack of inclusion extends to
development conferences as well.
Examining the representation of Global South scholars at seven highly regarded
international development conferences held between 2010 and 2019, Amarante et al. (2021)
found that researchers from developing countries were significantly underrepresented
compared to their counterparts from Global North institutions. Out of all the papers presented
at these conferences, only 9% were authored by Southern researchers, while 57% were
authored by Northern researchers (Amarante et al., 2021). Notably, of the seven conferences
studied, only one was held in the Global South. The African Development Bank’s (ADB)
African Economic Conference (AEC) stood out as the only conference where more than half
of the participants were Southern researchers, while their presence at other conferences was
minimal.
Development conferences play a pivotal role in shaping policy-making and
influencing the global development research agenda. As these gatherings serve as critical
forums for the exchange of ideas and knowledge, allowing experts from various backgrounds
to collaboratively address pressing challenges, the participation of researchers at these
conferences not only impacts their publication records and career advancement but also
shapes the future trajectory of the field of development (Amarante et al., 2021). International
conferences contribute to shaping global policy agendas, serving as vital platforms for
researchers to remain up to date with the latest research trends and disseminate their work
within the scientific community (Puccinelli et al., 2022). Thus, addressing the
underrepresentation of Southern scholars at development conferences is essential for
fostering a more equitable and inclusive research landscape while ensuring that the voices
and perspectives of scholars from the Global South are adequately represented and integrated
into policy-making processes.
D. COVID-19
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual conferences emerged as an alternative
response to the challenges posed by travel restrictions to attend in-person conferences. Prior
to the pandemic, “most conferences were held in-person and provided limited attendance
opportunities for many researchers from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, particularly
early career researchers (ECRs), researchers from low- and middle-income countries, and
junior principal investigators (PIs)” (Sarabipour et al., 2021). Previously held back by factors
such as visa requirements or conference attendance fees, the shift to virtual platforms not
only allowed conferences to continue but opened up new opportunities for inclusivity,
accessibility, and diversity in participation (Sarabipour et al., 2021). Several studies have
explored the effectiveness and impact of virtual conferences, shedding light on their
advantages and outcomes.
One study focused on the International Society for Applied Ethology (ISAE) virtual
meeting in 2020 and aimed to investigate changes in conference attendance and the
perceptions of attendees (Chou & Camerlink, 2021). The findings revealed that one of the
most highly ranked advantages of the virtual format was the reduced cost of participating in
the conference (Chou & Camerlink, 2021). This included options for no registration fee or
reduced fees, making the conference more financially accessible to a broader range of
individuals. Additionally, participants valued the increased ability to participate, as virtual
conferences eliminate the need for travel and accommodation expenses. This allowed
individuals who might have faced barriers in attending an in-person conference to engage
actively and contribute to the research community. Respondents also appreciated the reduced
environmental footprint associated with virtual conferences, as they eliminate the carbon
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
14
emissions associated with travel. Interestingly, some participants, particularly ECRs,
expressed that the online presentation format was less stressful than presenting at an in-
person conference, providing a more comfortable and inclusive environment for knowledge
sharing (Chou & Camerlink, 2021).
A similar study focused on the 6th International Marine Conservation Congress
(IMCC), which made the transition to an online format in response to the pandemic (Niner &
Wassermann 2021). The researchers examined participants’ perceptions and experiences of
the virtual conference and its potential effects on access and inclusion. The results
demonstrated a substantial increase in accessibility, particularly for those who would have
been unable to attend an in-person event due to financial or personal constraints. The virtual
format allowed individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds and geographic
locations to participate, contributing to a more diverse and inclusive representation. The
increase in attendance by 74% compared to the previous in-person event, accompanied by a
38% rise in the number of countries represented, reflects the expanded reach and global
engagement made possible by virtual conferences (Niner & Wassermann 2021). The results
of the studies by Chou & Camerlink (2021) and Niner & Wassermann (2021) exemplify the
role of virtual conferences in breaking down financial, logistical, and geographical barriers,
enabling a broader range of individuals to actively engage in knowledge exchange and
collaboration.
Analyzing specific conferences that transitioned from in-person to virtual formats,
Skiles et al. (2022) examined the International Conferences on Learning Representations
(ICLR), the American Astronomical Society (AAS), and the North American Membrane
Society (NAMS) conferences. The researchers found that the virtual conferences attracted
more geographically diverse delegations compared to their historical in-person counterparts.
Again, the elimination of travel and registration costs associated with in-person events
contributed to this greater diversity, allowing individuals from different regions of the world
to participate. At the same time, the audiences of these virtual conferences were notably
larger, ranging from 40% to 120% above the historical average of in-person conferences
(Skiles et al., 2022). Importantly, the virtual format also facilitated a significant increase in
the participation of women, with attendance rising between 60% and 260% compared to the
baseline of in-person conferences (Skiles et al., 2022). Beyond offering greater accessibility,
virtual conferences also have the potential to address the gender disparity often observed in
traditional conference settings, providing a more inclusive environment for women
researchers to share their work and contribute to the discourse in their field.
A systematic analysis conducted by Wu et al. (2022) examined 24 conferences across
various fields, including medicine, biology, and computer science, during the period between
January and August 2020. Similar to the results expressed in the aforementioned studies, the
researchers of this study reported a substantial increase in the geographical distribution of
participants when conferences transitioned to a virtual format. The number of countries
represented expanded significantly, with a particular increase in participants from developing
countries across Africa, South America, Asia, and Oceania. The virtual conferences attracted
a considerably higher number of participants compared to their previous in-person
counterparts, indicating a greater reach and engagement within the global research
community. Notably, regions such as Oceania, which had limited representation in the
previous in-person conferences, experienced a significant increase in attendance in the virtual
format. Thus, virtual conferences also have the potential to provide opportunities for
researchers from traditionally underrepresented regions to connect, collaborate, and
contribute to the advancement of knowledge.
The collective findings from these studies consistently demonstrate the advantages of
shifting to virtual conferences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Virtual formats have not only
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
15
allowed conferences to continue in a challenging global context but have also facilitated
greater inclusivity, accessibility, and diversity of participants. The reduced cost of
participation, elimination of travel barriers, and the ability to connect from anywhere in the
world have contributed to the increased accessibility and engagement of individuals from
various socioeconomic backgrounds and geographic locations. The virtual environment has
also shown potential in creating a more inclusive space for underrepresented groups, such as
early career researchers and women, to actively participate and share their research (Skiles et
al., 2022; Sarabipour, 2020).
This research has already highlighted the necessity for increased representation of
Southern scholars and experts in the field of development. International conferences serve as
important platforms for knowledge exchange, enabling scholars to share information and
deliberate on future prospects. During the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual conferences emerged
as a valuable alternative to traditional in-person conferences. In comparison to in-person
conferences, virtual conferences are able to overcome participation barriers and broaden
geographical representation. They are also able to facilitate the engagement of scholars and
experts from the Global South in international discussions. Nonetheless, there is a lack of
research examining the representation of Global South scholars in development conferences
before and after the COVID-19 era. Considering the potential of virtual conferences to bridge
the gap between researchers from different regions and foster global collaborations, this study
aims to address this gap by looking at conferences held by organizations working on
international education between 2019 and 2021.
IV. Methodology
In this section, I discuss the methodology which I used to conduct this study. I touch upon my
theoretical approach before discussing my approach to data collection. In this section, I also
address the reasons for which I chose to look at events held by UNESCO-IBE, the OECD
Education and Skills division, and WBG Education.
A. Theoretical approach
In this research, I have taken a post-colonial approach to examining the representation of the
Global South in education development. I draw upon theories such as post-colonialism, post-
development, and Southern theory to interrogate the historical and contemporary dynamics
that shape education policies and practices in relation to the Global South.
Post-colonial theory, as distinguished from post-colonialism, offers a critical lens to
analyze the legacies of colonialism and provides alternative accounts of the world (Sharp,
2009). Edward Said’s work on Orientalism exemplifies post-colonial theory by exposing how
colonial powers constructed binary and hierarchical categorizations that privileged the West
and marginalized the rest (Said, 1985). These constructions perpetuated the notion of a
superior West and a subordinate rest, with colonial education systems reinforcing these
power imbalances. Previously, education was used as a tool of control and assimilation by
colonial powers (Malisa and Missedje, 2019). The educational systems implemented in
colonized territories were designed to propagate the cultural, social, and economic interests of
the colonizers, often at the expense of the indigenous populations (Malisa and Missedje,
2019). In turn, this has created a significant imbalance in access to education whilst
perpetuating existing inequalities.
The concept of the Global South, which emerges as a departure from post-colonial
theory, is also useful as a framework for analyzing contemporary power dynamics in a
globalized world. The Global South can be considered as a broader and more inclusive
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
16
category of political subjectivity, transcending geographical boundaries and recognizing
shared experiences of the negative impacts of capitalist globalization (Mahler, 2015;
Satpathy, 2009).
Similarly to post-colonial theory, post-development thinking questions the
assumptions underlying the categorization of regions and countries as “Third World” or
“developing” and critiques how these categorizations serve as mechanisms of control
(Escobar, 1995). Post-development theory also acknowledges the influence of neo-liberalism
in perpetuating global inequalities. Neoliberal representations of the Global South have also
reinforced power dynamics and perpetuated the West’s perceived superiority. Both capitalism
and colonialism have played a distinct role in shaping present-day development outcomes
(Ghosh, 2001; Horner, 2019).
Drawing upon the theories of post-colonialism, post-development, and Southern
theory, this research ultimately seeks to unveil and challenge the historical and contemporary
power dynamics, the North-South binary, and inequalities perpetuated within development
policies and practices.
In this research, I observe events held between 2019 and 2021 by three organizations
working in the field of education development. I hypothesized that Global South institutions
would be underrepresented in comparison with Global North institutions in all events held by
the three organizations I selected within the the timeframe of 2019 to 2021. On the other
hand, I also hypothesized that the representation of Global South scholars would be likely to
increase over time, as events became more accessible during the COVID-19 pandemic in the
virtual format.
B. Data collection approach
i. Finding events
The data collection process for my research involved extensive research. For the
purpose of this research, I included all events, whether they were open to the public or
closed-door. I would begin my search for events by accessing the websites of each of the
three organizations selected. If there were an option to filter my search on a website, I would
use this feature. Otherwise, I would refer to the events, news, or blog sections of a given
website.
Beyond website searches, I also utilized various social media platforms to search for
events. My engagement with social media platforms varied depending on an organizations’
level of engagement on each platform. All of the organizations I selected were active across
Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn but to varying degrees. For example, I found that
UNESCO-IBE published more events on Eventbrite than it did on Facebook, whereas the
OECD Education and Skills division was most likely to share about its events on Twitter or
on their website. Besides Eventbrite, Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, other social media
platforms which I consulted throughout the data collection process included Vimeo and
YouTube. I also used mafe use of external resources such as the Wayback Machine to find
information on events from earlier years. Similarly, I consulted the Genève Internationale or
International Geneva website to find events hosted by UNESCO-IBE which is based in
Geneva.
At the outset, my data collection plan was centered exclusively on events organized
by international organizations headquartered in Geneva, a city which is renowned for hosting
several prominent organizations working in the field of global development. At that time, I
had also reached out to representatives of these organizations. However, due to certain
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
17
limitations which I later discuss, I decided to broaden the scope of my research to also
include international organizations located outside of Geneva.
As part of my data collection process, I recorded 11 key variables for each event
included in this research. These variables allowed me to analyze and interpret the data from
multiple perspectives. The variables I considered for each event are as follows:
• Event Organizers: I noted the primary organization responsible for organizing the
event, providing insight into the institutional affiliation behind the gathering.
• Co-organizers (if any): In cases where multiple organizations collaborated to host the
event, I documented the names of co-organizers. This information shed light on
partnerships and collaborative efforts within the field of international education
development.
• Event Name: I recorded the specific name or title given to each event, allowing for
easy identification and reference throughout the research.
• Event Date: The date of each event was noted to establish a chronological framework
and track the occurrence of events over time.
• Event Topic: This variable encompassed the thematic focus of the event. It included
aspects such as regional emphasis, target audience (e.g., early childhood education,
teachers, school directors), or specific subject matters addressed.
• Format of the Event: I classified each event based on its format, distinguishing
between in-person, virtual, or hybrid formats. In doing so, I was able to observe a
change over time in event format before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Number of Participants: I recorded the total number of participants in each event. This
included all roles, such as moderators or discussants, while excluding speakers
representing the organizing or co-organizing organizations.
• Number of Participants from the Global South: To assess the representation of
scholars from the Global South, I counted the number of scholars representing
institutions based in the Global South for each event.
• Full Names of Global South Participants: I documented the full names of individual
speakers from the Global South in order to determine the frequency in which any one
individual appeared as an event participant over time.
• Global South Countries Represented: For each Global South participant, I identified
the country they represented based on the institution they represented at the event.
• Language(s) of the Event: I recorded the language(s) used during the event. This
variable provided insights into the linguistic diversity of events.
ii. Finding individuals
The objective of my research was ultimately to determine the extent to which the Global
South was represented in events. Thus, I spent a significant amount of time researching
individuals, as well. After determining that an event was held, I would then look to see who
participated in the event. To do so, I consulted event agendas or images advertising an event
which typically included the names of speakers. I was often able to determine the affiliation
of a participant through event agendas and images advertising events. However, this was not
always the case. In these instances, I would perform a Google search of the individual,
including keywords related to the topic of the event in which they participated. Often, I was
directed to the LinkedIn profile of a participant or their biography on the website of the
organization(s) with whom they were affiliated. In instances where I could not determine the
institution which a participant represented at the time of an event, I excluded the participant
from the overall participant count. As opposed to assuming whether a participant was
affiliated with a Global South institution based on information I could find, such as
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
18
educational backgrounds, I chose to simply exclude the participant when I was not fully
certain about them.
iii. Defining the Global South
For the purpose of this research, I defined the Global South non-OECD member countries,
consistent with how NORRAG defines the Global South (See: [OECD, 2023] for a list of all
OECD member countries).
Despite having defind the Global South as all non-OECD member countries, it is
important to note that this definition is not exhaustive and may exclude certain countries that
do not fall within the OECD membership but have high levels of development. For example,
China, Israel, Singapore, and Albania are examples of countries that are not part of the
OECD, but their economic and social development may not align with the typical perception
of the Global South. Similarly, there are certain OECD members whose economies better
resemble certain economies of Global South countries than those of very wealthy member
OECD member states, such as the US or the UK.
iv. Determining whether a speaker is representative of the Global South
Identifying whether a speaker was from a Global South country initially posed a challenge. It
is not straightforward to categorize someone as being from the Global South solely based on
their birthplace or nationality. For instance, an individual may have been born in a Global
South country but hold citizenship in a Global North nation, or they may have migrated to the
Global North during their youth and completed their education there. Similarly, someone
born in the Global North may have had immigrant parents from the Global South, speak their
parents’ heritage language, or have other connections to the Global South. Determining a
speaker’s affiliation with the Global South requires engaging in personal discussions with
each speaker in each of the events I observed.
Thus, Instead of attributing a country to each speaker based solely on their place of
origin, I considered scholars from the Global South as individuals affiliated with institutions
in the Southern hemisphere or those based in the Global South (excluding OECD member
states), similar to what Amrante et al. (2021) did in their research on Global South
representation in research and development conferences.
C. Organizations
i. UNESCO-IBE
Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, UNESCO-IBE was the first organization which I
included in this research. Established in 1925, UNESCO-IBE has focused on promoting
educational reform and advancing educational standards worldwide (UNESCO-IBE, 2023).
The organization has played an important role in addressing the educational needs of post-
colonial nations in recognizing the importance of decolonizing education systems and
promoting inclusive, culturally relevant, and contextually appropriate approaches to learning.
Since its establishment, UNESCO-IBE has focused on enhancing educational policies,
curriculum development, teacher training, and educational research to support the aspirations
of newly independent countries.
A key contribution of UNESCO-IBE to international education is its emphasis on the
preservation and promotion of indigenous knowledge and languages. It recognized that
indigenous cultures and languages were essential for fostering identity, self-esteem, and the
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
19
overall well-being of individuals and communities (UNESCO, 2021). By advocating for the
inclusion of indigenous knowledge in educational curricula, UNESCO-IBE aims to empower
marginalized populations and redress the historical injustices perpetuated by colonial
education. UNESCO-IBE has also played a pivotal role in promoting international
cooperation and knowledge exchange in the field of education. It served as a platform for
countries to share best practices, innovative approaches, and research findings (UNESCO-
IBE, 2023). Through its initiatives, UNESCO-IBE has facilitated the transfer of expertise,
resources, and ideas across nations, enabling them to learn from each other’s experiences and
adapt successful strategies to their own contexts.
Over the years, UNESCO-IBE has expanded its scope and evolved to address
emerging challenges in education development. It continues to advocate for equitable access
to quality education, the promotion of inclusive and sustainable development, and the
recognition of the diverse cultural and linguistic heritage of nations. UNESCO-IBE has a
significant influence on global education policy through its present-day activities which
include knowledge production, curriculum development, capacity-building and training
initiatives, and policy development and advocacy efforts (UNESCO-IBE, 2023). Recognizing
the impact of UNESCO-IBE’s approach to education development and the crucial role it
plays in shaping global education, I chose to include the organization in my research.
ii. OECD Education and Skills
Based in Paris, France, OECD Education and Skills was established as a division of the
OECD. Since its conception, the organization has played a significant role in education
policy making and knowledge production. The OECD Education and Skills has been heavily
involved in establishing educational standards and developing learning metrics,
demonstrating its commitment to shaping the field of education (Martens and Jakobi, 2010;
Breakspear, 2012; Meyer and Schiller, 2013; Piro, 2019). At present, the organization is
primarily known for its international educational measurement system called the Programme
for International Student Assessment (PISA).
PISA has had a significant impact on national policies and educational systems.
Critics argue that the OECD’s involvement in education, particularly through PISA, has
almost transformed into “a system of governance” (Xioman & Auld, 2020). Sarmurzun et al.
(2021) explains:
PISA has been rigorously examined and roundly criticized by educational scholars
around the world for the past 20 years. Zhao (2020) characterizes this period as “two
decades of havoc.” Several studies have shown that PISA has a significant impact on
policy initiatives in many countries. This has reached the point where PISA has
virtually become synonymous with the OECD: when addressing the OECD’s impact
on education, most academics refer to PISA (Seitzer et al., 2021). Inevitably, PISA is
the subject of heated debate. Although Schleicher (2007) argues that the PISA results
give “policy-makers and practitioners helpful tools to improve quality, equity, and
efficiency in education by revealing some common features in students, schools, and
education systems that do well,” OECD research could threaten the provision of
public education. One of the critiques raised about the OECD in light of its global
policy making impact is that the organization is inherently politicized in favor of
universalistic notions that can exacerbate current inequality between various regions
and countries (Zurn, 2014). Therefore, Europe and North America, as well as a
broader range of member States, could be seen as exerting disproportionate control
over less developed places (Volante et al., 2017). Kazakhstan is a clear example of
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
20
this, as the curriculum for a renewed education system has been prepared in
collaboration with Cambridge University (Bridges, 2014).
Taking an example from Kazakhstan whose PISA 2018 results revealed a decline in reading
literacy among Kazakhstani students, and Kazakh President, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev,
immediately responded to address initiatives the country would take to improve results in the
coming years. President Tokayev publicly stressed the importance of cultivating a high
reading culture and developing reading literacy among elementary school students at 4th
session of the National Council of Public Trust, prompting Kazakhstan’s Ministry of
Education (MES) to consider modifications to the national curriculum, specifically in Kazakh
literature, and exploring discussions on the inclusion of world literature in school curricula
(Sarmurzun et al., 2021).
Aside from PISA, the OECD Education and Skills division influences global
education policy through its production of the Teaching and Learning International Survey
(TALIS) and the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), whereas they also conduct activities focus
on policy development and implementation related to topics such as the future of education,
vocational education and training (VET), and early childhood education (ECE) (OECD,
2023).
Considering the influential role of the OECD Education and Skills division in
influencing policy-making in education, I have chosen to include it in this study. This
organization is also interesting to include, based on the fact that it is governed by OECD
member states which I consider as Global North countries in this research.
iii. WBG Education
Located in Washington, D.C., US, the WBG Education’s division is the final organization I
chose to include in this research. The WBG’s Education division is part of the World Bank,
which was founded in 1944 and serves as the largest source of financing for developing
countries. In education, the World Bank has emerged as a key driver of global education
policy, overshadowing the once-dominant role of UNESCO (Klees, 2012). The organization
shapes education policy through its extensive research and strategy reports, which are
reinforced by its substantial grant and loan funding and ensure countries conform to its policy
preferences (Klees, 2012).
The World Bank has been heavily criticized for its approach to international
development. In particular, the organization has been criticized for possessing a neoliberal
ideology which disadvantages Global South countries. Girvan (2007) argues that the Bank’s
centralized control over development research, coupled with its biased knowledge generation,
hampers the knowledge-generating capacities of developing countries. Meanwhile, Klees
(2012) asserts that:
The World Bank prides itself on being evidence- and research-based, but it is not. Its
premises and conclusions are based on ideology, not evidence. The World Bank
selects and interprets the research that fits with its ideology… What development
means and how best to achieve it is widely contested, yet what we get from the World
Bank is not a fair look at the evidence and debate but a continued commitment to a
particular development ideology.
The World Bank’s limited efforts to build institutions within developing countries, thereby
enabling independent thinking, have also been questioned (Girvan, 2007). Centralized
research control within the Bank is seen as a subtle means of setting the policy agenda to
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
21
serve the interests of the Bank’s Northern sponsors (Girvan, 2007). More than anything, the
World Bank is concerned with economic growth. Klees (2012) argues that the “World Bank
has been very pleased with a spate of studies that support the argument that education
contributes to GNP [Gross National Product]…The World Bank especially likes the newer
versions, which argue that it is less the quantity of schooling and more the quality of
schooling, as measured by test scores, that result in GNP growth.”
At present, WBG Education is focused on topics which include girls’ education, the
digitalization of education, early childhood development, and conflict education, amongst
others. Through the reports and research the organization generates, WBG Education shapes
education policy. Their influence over education policy is backed by their financial resources
to fund projects as they see fit. For these reasons, I have chosen to include the WBG’s
Education division in my research.
D. Sample Size
This research examines a comprehensive dataset comprising 133 events conducted by three
organizations during the period from 2019 to 2021. This includes a total of 14 events
organized or co-organized by UNESCO-IBE, a total of 77 events organized or co-organized
by the OECD Education and Skills division, and a total of 42 events organized or co-
organized by the WBG’s Education division. Throughout these 133 events, a total of 898
individuals took part. Notably, this count excludes representatives from the organizing and
co-organizing entities, ensuring a more accurate assessment of the representation of
participants. Including representatives from the organizing and co-organizing entities, the
total number of participants amounts to over 1,400 individuals over the course of the 133
events observed. This means that, beyond recording event data, I also conducted background
research into at least 1,400 individuals to determine the institutions they represented at the
given time when an event was held.
V. Results
In this section, I will begin by presenting the individual results of each organization
according to their total number of events, total number of participants, total number of Global
South participants, and the share of Global South representation as a percentage of total
participants at events held for each year between 2019 and 2021. I will also present data
concerning the linguistic diversity of events and event formats utilized for each organization
in each year. Then, I will compare the results from each organization over the time period
selected.
A. UNESCO-IBE
The first organization which I included as part of this research was UNESCO-IBE. In 2019,
the organization held a total of three events which included 55 participants. Of these 55
participants, a total of 16 individuals represented Southern institutions amounting to an
overall share of 29% of total participants. All events in this year were held in-person and in
English.
Figure 1: UNESCO-IBE: Global South countries represented at development conferences in
2019
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
22
(Source: Self-elaborated)
Figure 1 above shows the Global South countries represented by individuals who
participated in UNESCO-IBE events in 2019. A total of 12 countries were represented by 16
individuals from Southern institutions. The map shows representation from a diverse number
of regions, including the Caribbean, South America, the Sahel, East Africa, Southern Africa,
Eastern Europe, East Asia, South Asia, and Southeastern Asia. Notably, there was a lack of
representation in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Pacific region.
In 2020, UNESCO-IBE again held a total of three events which included 27
participants. A total of 17 individuals represented Southern institutions amounting to an
overall share of 63% of total participants.
1
During this year, all events were held virtually and
a total of four languages were used across these events.
Figure 2: UNESCO-IBE: Global South countries represented at development conferences in
2020
1
Note: Data anomaly. Please refer to subsection E of this section titled “Data anomalies” for further
explanation.
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
23
(Source: Self-elaborated)
Figure 2 above shows the Global South countries represented by individuals who
participated in UNESCO-IBE events in 2020. A total of 17 individuals from Southern
institutions represented 12 countries. The majority of countries represented were African
countries. Other regions represented include South America, the Caribbean, and Southeast
Asia. There was no representation of the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, or
the Pacific region. The continents of Asia and South America were represented by individuals
from institutions in only one country on each continent, similar to the Caribbean.
In 2021, UNESCO-IBE held more events. A total of eight events took place this year
and included 176 total participants. There were 97 individuals representing Southern
institutions amounting to an overall share of 55% of total participants. During this year, all
events were held either virtually or in a hybrid format. At least four languages were used
across all events.
Figure 3: UNESCO-IBE: Global South countries represented at development conferences in
2021
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
24
(Source: Self-elaborated)
Figure 3 above shows the Global South countries represented by individuals who
participated in UNESCO-IBE events in 2021. A total of 97 individuals from Southern
institutions represented 29 countries. The distribution of representation was greater than
previous years. Most all regions of the world were represented in 2021 except for the
Caribbean, Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, North Africa, and the Pacific region.
B. OECD Education and Skills
The next organization in this research was OECD’s Education and Skills division. In 2019,
the organization held a total of 19 events which included at least 313 participants. Of these
313 participants, a total of at least 31 individuals represented Southern institutions amounting
to an overall share of 10% of total participants.
2
All events in this year were in English and
included a mixture of in-person, virtual, and hybrid format events.
Figure 4: OECD Education and Skills: Global South countries represented at development
conferences in 2019
2
Note: Data anomaly. Please refer to subsection E of this section titled “Data anomalies” for further
explanation.
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
25
(Source: Self-elaborated)
Figure 4 above shows the Global South countries represented by individuals who
participated in OECD Education and Skills division events in 2019. Southern institutions
were represented by a total of 31 individuals from four countries. Except for Russia and
South Africa, the Southern countries represented were primarily BRICS (Brazil, Russia,
India, China, and South Africa) alliance countries which comprise the largest economies in
each region. There was no representation from any region of Africa, the Middle East, the
Caribbean, Europe, or the Pacific.
The OECD Education and Skills division held more events in 2020 for a total of 27.
The total number of participants in these events was 44 of which 7 individuals represented
Southern institutions. The overall share of participants from Global South countries again
equaled 16% of total participants. All events in this year were in English and were conducted
virtually.
Figure 5: OECD Education and Skills: Global South countries represented at development
conferences in 2020
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
26
(Source: Self-elaborated)
Figure 5 above shows the Global South countries represented by individuals who
participated in OECD Education and Skills division events in 2020. Southern institutions
were represented by a total of 7 individuals from three countries– Tanzania, Egypt, and
Brazil. Representation of Global South countries was particularly low this year and lacking in
diversity of representation, as well.
In 2021, the organization held the most events for a total of 31. The total number of
participants in these events was 73 of which 7 individuals represented Southern institutions.
Only 10% of total participants represented Global South institutions, the lowest in all three
years observed. Apart from one event which was held in French, all other events were held in
English. All events were held online in 2021.
Figure 6: OECD Education and Skills: Global South countries represented at development
conferences in 2021
(Source: Self-elaborated)
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
27
Figure 6 above shows the Global South countries represented by individuals who
participated in OECD Education and Skills division events in 2021. A total of 7 individuals
represented Southern institutions in five countries. Most Southern institutions represented
were Asian. There was no representation from Latin America, the Middle East, Europe, or the
Pacific, whereas only one country from Africa was represented.
C. WBG Education
The World Bank Group’s Education division was the final organization I included in this
research. In 2019, WBG Education held a total of 9 events which included 39 participants. A
total of 19 participants represented Southern institutions. The overall share of participants
from Global South institutions was 49% of total participants. All events were held in English
in 2019 and were either in-person or hybrid format events.
Figure 7: WBG Education: Global South countries represented at development conferences in
2019
(Source: Self-elaborated)
Figure 7 above shows the Global South countries represented by individuals who
participated in OECD Education and Skills division events in 2021. A total of 19 individuals
represented Southern institutions in 16 countries. There was a highly diverse number of
countries represented relative to the number of individuals from Global South institutions.
The greatest representation came from Africa. There was also representation of Southern
countries in South Asia, South America, Southern Europe, and the Middle East. However,
there was a lack of representation from the Caribbean, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, and the
Pacific region.
In 2020, WBG Education held a total of 10 events with a total of 22 participants. In
this year, only one participant represented a Global South institution, thus the share of
participants from Global South institutions was just 5% of total participants. All events were
held in English in 2020 and consisted of a mixture of in-person, virtual, and hybrid format
events.
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
28
Figure 8: WBG Education: Global South countries represented at development conferences in
2020
(Source: Self-elaborated)
Figure 8 above shows the Global South countries represented by individuals who
participated in WBG Education events in 2020. Only one participant represented a Global
South country. Syria was the only country represented. Global South representation was
extremely low at all events this year.
In 2021, WBG Education held a total of 23 events with a total of 149 participants. A
total of 52 participants represented Global South institutions. The share of Southern
participants was 35% of total participants. A total of seven languages were used across all
events, and all events took place online. This was the largest number of languages
represented in events held by any organization in a given year.
Figure 9: WBG Education: Global South countries represented at development conferences in
2021
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
29
(Source: Self-elaborated)
Figure 9 above shows the Global South countries represented by individuals who
participated in WBG Education events in 2021. A total of 52 individuals represented 30
institutions based in the Global South. In comparison to the year before, the representation of
Global South institutions increased significantly. Previously, Syria was the only Global South
country represented. In 2021, representation was diversified to represent most all regions of
the globe, except for Central Asia, North Africa, and the Pacific.
D. A comparative look at Global South representation across events held by UNESCO-
IBE, OECD Education and Skills, and WBG Education between 2019 and 2021
The previous subsections have provided an overview of the findings concerning the
representation of the Global South in events organized or co-organized by UNESCO-IBE, the
OECD Education and Skills division, and WBG Education from 2019 to 2021. Building upon
these individual analyses, this section compares the outcomes of Global South representation
across each organization.
Table 1: Results
|
(Source: Self-elaborated)
Table 1 above presents the number of events, number of participants, the number of
participants from Global South institutions, and the share of participants from Global South
institutions as a percentage of total participants at a given event respective to each
organization for the years 2019, 2020, and 2021. The details of these results have been
provided in the previous three subsections. In this table, I have also calculated the total
number of participants, the number of participants from Global South institutions, and the
share of participants from Global South institutions as a percentage of total participants
respective to each organization for the period of 2019-2021. The total numbers provide a
general overview of Global South representation in events at each organization over time. In
the last row of the table, I present the total number of events, number of participants, the
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
30
number of participants from Global South institutions, and the share of participants from
Global South institutions as a percentage of total participants at a given event for each
organization for the period 2019-2021. Capturing this data provides insight into overall
representation of the Global South in events held by leading organizations working in the
field of education development.
Referring to Table 1, UNESCO-IBE, referred to as IBE-UNESCO in the table, held a
total of 14 events between 2019 and 2021. A total of 258 individuals participated in these
events, excluding representatives from UNESCO-IBE. There were 130 individuals from
Global South institutions represented in these events which comprised 50% of total
participants. The OECD Education and Skills division held a total of 77 events between 2019
and 2021 wherein 430 individuals participated. Only 45 participants or 10% of the total
participants came from a Global South institution. Between 2019 and 2021, WBG Education
held a total of 42 events. A total of 210 individuals participated, 72 of which were from a
Global South institution. A total of 34% of the total participants at events held between these
years represented the Global South.
Based on these results, UNESCO-IBE were most inclusive of the Global South in
their events out of the three organizations. The ratio of Global South to Global North
participants was equal in events held by UNESCO-IBE. Nonetheless, it is important to keep
in mind that UNESCO-IBE also held the least number of events of the three organizations
portrayed in the data. As there may have been more events that were not accounted for in the
data collection due to a lack of access to information, the number of Global South countries
could be higher or lower. In section four, I discuss in detail the limitations of this research.
Of all three organizations, the OECD Education and Skills division held the most
events but had the lowest participation rate of scholars from the Global South. Between 2019
and 2021, Global South representation was consistently between 10-20% of total participants.
When compared to UNESCO-IBE and WBG Education, this was significantly lower.
The World Bank Group’s Education division held more events over time and
significantly increased their overall participation from 2019 to 2021. In the year 2019 and the
year 2021, the organization had a relatively high participation rate from the Global South,
especially when compared with the OECD. However, in 2020, the total number of
participants was low compared to other years, and only one individual from the Global South
was represented in the events that took place during this year.
Again looking at Table 1, UNESCO-IBE, the OECD Education and Skills division,
and WBG Education held a collective total of 133 events between 2019 and 2021. These
events featured a total of 898 participants of which 247 represented a Global South
institution. The overall share of Global South participants across events held by all three
organizations between 2019 and 2021 totaled 28% of total participants.
E. Data anomalies
The results of this research may be slightly skewed due to two data anomalies present in data
for UNESCO-IBE in the year 2021 and OECD Education and Skills division in 2019. Table 2
below shows the results of this research excluding these data anomalies.
Table 2: Results (excluding data anomalies)
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
31
(Source: Self-elaborated)
The data for UNESCO-IBE in the year 2021 was skewed by the 4th World Council of
Comparative Education Societies (WCCES) symposium which was co-hosted by the
organization. The symposium took place in November 2021 on the topics of value-based
education and emotional learning in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It convened at
least 128 speakers who represented at least 67 Global South countries. If the symposium were
excluded from the data, referring to Table 2 above, UNESCO-IBE held a total of 7 events
wherein 130 individuals participated. Among these 130 participants, 72 represented a Global
South institution which is equivalent to a share of 55% of the total participants. Excluding the
WCCES symposium, Global South participants were better represented than Global North
participants in UNESCO-IBE events between 2019 and 2021. UNESCO-IBE would be the
only organization observed in this research where this phenomenon holds true.
Another anomaly in the data occurred in 2019 for the OECD Education and Skills
division. In December of that year, the first Forum for World Education (FWE) on the future
of global education was held in partnership with the FWE non-profit organization who are
“committed to promoting global economic growth through educational innovation and
helping disadvantaged groups gain access and equality” (OECD, 2019). The two-day
conference brought together over 300 individuals from more than 10 countries, at least three
of which were Global South countries based on the information available in the conference
press release (OECD, 2019). Nonetheless, it is important to point out that at least two of the
three individuals who represented the Global South in this conference are billionaires Jack
Ma of China and Dhanin Chearavanont of Thailand. If the FWE forum were to be excluded
from the data, referring to Table 2, the OECD Education and Skills division held a total of 76
events wherein 130 individuals participated. Among these 130 participants, 15 came from the
Global South. Thus, the total share of Global South participants would be 12% of the total
participants, which is 2% higher than the share depicted in Table 1.
Despite data anomalies, I have chosen to analyze my data according to Table 1 which
includes these anomalies. As this research attempts to provide a holistic understanding of the
Global South in events, I have chosen to analyze the data which includes all events which
were organized or co-organized by the three organization I selected for this study.
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
32
VI. Discussion
In this section, I analyze the results of this research from section V. Nuancing my results by
considering the governing structures of each organization represented, this section aims to
provide better insight into each organization as a whole.
A. Governance
To offer another dimension to my research, I also investigated the governance of each
organization to determine if its composition aligned with my findings. My assumption was
that greater diversity in the governing structure would correspond to a more diverse
participant composition in the events.
UNESCO-IBE is governed by a council known as the IBE Council. This council
serves as the governing body and comprises 12 representatives appointed during UNESCO’s
General Conference, with each member state serving a four-year term (UNESCO-IBE, 2015).
While council members are eligible for re-election, they can hold office for a maximum of
two consecutive terms, provided their respective member states’ terms are renewed by the
General Conference (UNESCO-IBE, 2015). From 2019 to 2021, it appeared that UNESCO-
IBE maintained the same council members. These members represented a total of 11
countries, including Switzerland, Slovenia, Qatar, Portugal, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Ecuador,
China, Armenia, Angola, and South Africa. Between 2019 and 2021, UNESCO-IBE was
directed by two Global South representatives, Mmantsetsa Marope and Yao Ydo. The
majority of UNESCO-IBE’s council members were from the Global South, with only three
out of eight countries represented belonging to the Global North.
The OECD Education and Skills division is governed by the OECD Council as
opposed to a board of directors. The OECD Council serves as the primary decision-making
body of the organization, comprising ambassadors from member countries, the European
Commission, and chaired by the Secretary-General (OECD, 2022). The OECD Education and
Skills division is a directorate of the OECD which is overseen by four entities who are
responsible for the oversight and implementation of activities within the framework of the
OECD Council’s governance (OECD, 2022). These bodies are the Education Policy
Committee, the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation Governing Board (CERI),
the PISA Governing Board, and the TALIS Governing Board. Between 2019 and 2021,
German national Andreas Schleicher served as the Director of the Education and Skills
division. Meanwhile, the Education Policy Committee was chaired by a US national, the
CERI was headed by a French national, the PISA Governing Board was chaired by an
Australian national, and the TALIS Governing Board was chaired by a Portuguese national.
The Global South is not represented by any individual who oversees the OECD Education
and Skills division.
The WBG Education division functions as a unit of the World Bank. The organization
is directed by Peruvian national Jaime Saavedra and is represented by a governing body
known as the Board of Governors, who serve as the ultimate decision-makers within the
World Bank (World Bank, 2023). Typically, the Board of Governors comprises the finance
ministers or development ministers of the member countries. Each of the World Bank’s 189
member countries appoint one Governor and one alternate Governor, however the
organization’s 25 executive directors hold the majority of the decision-making (Britannica,
2023). Five nations, namely the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, and
France, have the authority to select their own executive directors, whereas the 184 remaining
countries are grouped into regions, and each region elects a single executive director. The
chairman of the bank has always been a US citizen throughout its existence. Whereas the
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
33
director of WBG Education represents a country from the Global South, the ultimate
decision-making power within the bank is held by representatives of the Global North. Thus,
Global South representation within the governance structure of the WBG Education is low.
In my research, I found that UNESCO-IBE was the most inclusive of the Global
South of the three organizations observed. This aligns with the composition of UNESCO-
IBE’s governing body, wherein five out of eight members represented a Global South
country, as well as the organization’s directors who represent Global South countries. The
OECD Education and Skills division was the least inclusive of the Global South in its events
held between 2019 and 2021. The individuals who oversee the organization are all
representatives of Global North countries, thus coinciding with its low representation of the
Global South in events. The WBG Education was more representative than the OECD
Education and Skills division but less representative than UNESCO-IBE of the Global South
in events. While decision-making power at WBG Education is primarily in the hands of
representatives of Global North countries, the organization is directed by a Peruvian national.
Thus, it is not very inclusive of the Global South in its governance structure, mostly aligns
with the results of my research concerning the WBG Education’s division.
B. Analysis
The results of this research showed that UNESCO-IBE was the most inclusive of the Global
South in their events out of the three organizations. Additionally, UNESCO-IBE exhibited a
strong inclination for collaboration with other organizations, perhaps signaling an
understanding of the significance of partnerships, particularly with Southern institutions, in
achieving development goals (Konttinen et al., 2014). UNESCO-IBE also stood out by
offering their events in multiple languages, which reflects their advocacy for linguistic
accessibility and inclusiveness in education (UNESCO-IBE, 2023). Nonetheless, it is
important to keep in mind that UNESCO-IBE also held the least number of events out of the
three organizations. This could be a result of a lack of access to information during the data
collection process. On the other hand, it could be explained by a lack of resources available at
the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, as, after all, the organization did increase the number
of events it held in 2021. It may also be unfair to compare UNESCO’s IBE branch to the
OECD Education and Skills division and WBG Education in this regard, seeing as the latter
two are considerably larger.
The OECD Education and Skills division was the least inclusive of scholars from the
Global South, despite having held the most events out of the three organizations. Considering
that the OECD operates primarily on behalf of wealthy Northern countries, this could explain
the reason why there was a lack of representation of Global South individuals in events.
Nonetheless, several of OECD event topics were meant to address “international” or “global”
challenges in education, such as their event titled “The state of education around the world:
Findings from Education at a Glance 2021,” which featured a total of zero representatives
from the Global South. The OECD Education and Skills division also held nearly all of its
events in English, whereas both English and French are considered official languages within
the organization (OECD, 2022). English used as a lingua franca in events in OECD is likely
due to the linguistic diversity of the organization’s member states, however it is important to
keep in mind the hegemonic role of the English language in academia and research and the
many languages represented by the organization’s members.
Over the course of the years between 2019 and 2021, the WBG’s Education division
held more events over time and increased their overall participation rate in events. The
organization also had a higher participation rate of Global South scholars relative to total
participants than the OECD Education and Skills division but less than UNESCO-IBE.
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
34
Considering that the World Bank presents itself as a collective which is representative of all
189 member countries, it would have made sense if the organization was the most inclusive
of the Global South (World Bank, 2023). Santos (2016) critiques the World Bank for
presenting itself under the guise of “univeralism” and describes its activities as a form of
“hegemonic globalization,” whereby “the force of an idea that asserts itself by the very idea
of force, that is to say, by such imperatives of the free market as rating agencies,
conditionalities… delocalization of businesses, land grabbing, sweatshops throughout the
global South, and so on.” On the other hand, the WBG Education division was the most
linguistically inclusive of any organization, offering interpretation into a total of seven
languages in its events. However, it is important to note that this linguistic inclusivity is new,
as in the years 2019 and 2020, all of the organization’s events were held in English. In 2021,
the organization provided interpretation into an additional six languages over the course of its
events, potentially signaling efforts to make events more accessible to a larger population.
As a collective, the three organizations in this study held a total of 133 events between
2019 and 2021. Ultimately, the percentage of Global South participation in these events was
28% of total participants, equivalent to around 1 in 4 speakers. This is quite low when
considering that UNESCO-IBE, the OECD Education and Skills division, and WBG
Education are global leaders in international education policy. All three organizations are
heavily engaged in programs based in the Global South, yet as a collective, more work is left
to be done to amplify the voices of the historically marginalized South.
VII. Limitations
During the course of my research, I faced certain limitations. As previously discussed, I had
initially planned to focus on international organizations headquartered in Geneva working in
the field of education development. However, due to limited data availability for events held
between 2019 and 2021 for Geneva-based organizations, I needed to expand my research
scope. Thus, I broadened my focus to include three global organizations working on
international education development with diverse objectives and regional focuses. Each
organization also varied in size and scope of their work. By expanding my research, I was
able to capture a broader picture of events and offer a more diversified picture of Global
South representation in international education.
Despite expanding my research to include large organizations working in education, I
still faced challenges while searching for events. For instance, while using the UNESCO-IBE
website’s search feature to access resources and previous year’s events through filtering, I
repeatedly encountered an error message stating “No results found,” regardless of the year I
specified, as depicted in Figure 10 below.
Figure 10: UNESCO-IBE search results
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
35
(Source: Screen capture of UNESCO-IBE resources webpage available at
https://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/resources)
Due to this constraint, I heavily depended on social media platforms such as
Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn to carry out my investigation on UNESCO-IBE events
spanning from 2019 to 2021. Consequently, it is important to note that my dataset may not
encompass all the events organized by UNESCO-IBE over the course of this timeframe, as I
could not verify the total number of events the organization hosted directly through their
website.
Another challenge I encountered during my research was accessing event data. During
several instances, I encountered broken or expired links to events, which impeded my ability
to gather comprehensive data for certain events. As illustrated in Figure 11 below, I would
frequently be redirected to web pages that were inaccessible or not functioning properly.
Figure 11: Webinar not available
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
36
(Source: Screen capture)
In the case that I was directed to a broken or expired link, I would perform a Google search of
an event, including the date of the event. In most cases, I would then be able to find the event
I was searching for, often through a social media post or through an article or news item
published by a co-organizer of an event. In other cases, a link would direct me to a website
that had been taken over by another organization. For example, while attempting to find
information pertaining to the OECD Education and Skills division’s 2019 Education Fast
Forward (EFF) event, I was taken to the webpage www.effdebate.org which has since been
claimed by another organization. On the rare occasion that I was not able to find information
about an event which did not also include a participant list, I included the event in an
organization’s overall event count but excluded other variables including total participant
count, total participant count from the Global South, and share of participants from the
Global South as a percentage of total participants.
Another limitation I faced was a result of my methodology. In my methodology, I
stated that I considered a participant representative of the Global South if they represented an
institution based in the Global South at the time of an event. While I consider this
methodology a better approach to identifying a scholar from the Global South than
attempting to ascertain the nationality of a participant, it was nonetheless flawed. For
example, in several instances, I came across individuals who represented Global North
institutions but were originally from a Global South country and represented their region in
their position at a given Global North institution. Less often, I encountered individuals who
represented Global South institutions but came from Global North countries, completed their
studies in the Global North, and worked for Global North-based institutions before acquiring
their current position in a Global South institution. Despite evident flaws in my methodology,
I maintained it throughout the data collection process. A better way to assess whether a
participant is from the Global South would simply be to ask them directly. However, due to
time and resource constraints, I was not able to perform this level of in-depth research.
VIII. Conclusions
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
37
This research has attempted to provide insight into the underrepresentation of scholars from
the Global South within international organizations focused on education development.
Previous research has highlighted the lack of Southern scholars in research and academia
(See: Amarante et al., 2021; Graham et al., 2011; Cummings & Hoebink, 2017; Graham et
al., 2011; Das et al., 2013) and in the field of international development wherein most work
on development occurs in the Global South (See: Amarante et al., 2021; Chelwa, 2019). This
research has prompted further investigation into Global South representation in development
at other levels. Research undertaken by Amarante et al. (2021) revealed that the South is not
only underrepresented in research and academia on development, but also in development
conferences, which serve as highly influential spaces of knowledge exchange, often shaping
policy-making. This also reigns true of the field of education development which has
excluded and marginalized scholars from the Global South (Smith & Sargent, 2022). A
legacy of colonialism, Global North countries have positioned themselves as the global
producers of knowledge and dominate global education as the “developed” West aiding the
“developing” rest (Kothari, 2005). While previous research has examined the representation
of the Global South in development conferences and in education, there is no such research
on the participation of the Global South in education development conferences or events.
In this study, I conducted research into events held between 2019 and 2021 by three
prominent international organizations working on education: UNESCO-IBE, the Education
and Skills division of the OECD, and the Education division of the WBG. For each event, I
recorded the total number of event participants and the total number of participants
representing Global South-based institutions. I observed that Global South participation in all
events was 28% of total participants, or approximately representative of 1 in 4 speakers.
Considering the influential role of UNESCO-IBE, the OECD Education and Skills division,
and WBG Education in shaping international education policy, this figure is low. Concerted
efforts by each organization are required to amplify the voices and contributions of Southern
scholars in education.
A. Recommendations
To address the aforementioned challenges and promote equity in the field of education
development, I recommend the following:
1. Recognizing that UNESCO holds a unique position in the realm of education
policy influence as an international organization (IO), UNESCO sets itself
apart from the economically focused World Bank and OECD (Schultz &
Vicko, 2021). According to Schultz & Vicko (2021), UNESCO serves as a
platform for local knowledge and actors through its national offices and
programming. Simultaneously, it plays a global role in shaping education
policies, working in harmony with other IOs to influence national and local
education provisions. Within UNESCO, the IBE occupies its own unique
position, particularly in the domains of curriculum design and multilingual
education. By continuing to emphasize the participation of individuals from
the Global South in events, UNESCO-IBE has the potential to further
dismantle educational barriers and promote inclusivity in the field.
2. While the primary focus of the OECD Education and Skills division lies in
the economic concerns of the countries in the Global North, it is nonetheless
crucial that the organization prioritize enhancing the representation of the
Global South in its activities. Given that the OECD Education and Skills
division also carries out various programs in the Global South, it is essential to
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
38
actively engage stakeholders from these regions in decision-making processes
and policy discussions in spaces like development conferences.
3. The WBG’s Education division serves as the largest source of financing for
developing countries, thus their potential to influence policy making in
education has the greatest potential to shape education policy among the
organizations included in this study. For this reason, it is crucial that the
organization actively work to promote policies which include and amplify the
voices of Southern scholars. More, the WBG’s Education division should
continue to enhance its representation of Global South scholars in its events,
as it did between the years 2019 and 2021.
4. During the COVID-19 pandemic, conferences shifted from in-person events to
virtual events. This shift presented an opportunity to overcome barriers of
accessibility, thus highlighting the importance of ongoing provision of online
connectivity options by each organization. By doing so, “global access to
knowledge will increase substantially during and after meetings, enabling
greater democratisation of science, and equalising differences between
researchers of diverse means and backgrounds” (Sarabipour et al., 2021).
5. International organizations should continue to challenge the linguistic
hegemony of English in events, as linguistic diversity in international
conferences is a fundamental means of promoting inclusivity and accessibility
to information for all participants.
Ultimately, UNESCO-IBE, the OECD Education and Skills division, and WBG
Education “are situated in a privileged position, endowed with policy influence” (Schultz &
Vicko, 2021). The OECD, as highlighted by Schultz & Vicko (2021), has been a pioneer in
compiling comparative data on education performance since the 1960s, and the launch of
PISA has allowed them “to occupy a position of power, providing a tool of governance by
comparison on a grand scale.” Similarly, UNESCO-IBE has played a significant role in
setting global education policy through its diverse range of activities, including knowledge
production and advocacy efforts (UNESCO-IBE, 2023). The WBG’s Education division has
demonstrated its influence by actively engaging in the integration and coordination of
education policies at the national level, emphasizing the importance of private-sector
involvement in education (Schultz & Vicko, 2021). Given the significance of these
organizations in shaping education policy, it is essential they leverage their positions of
power to enhance Global South representation in education and actively challenge the
persisting North-South binary in development.
Note: In future research, it would be interesting to expand the timeframe and number of
organizations included in this study to provide a better picture of representation of the Global
South in development conferences on education.
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
39
Bibliography
Amarante, V., Burger, R., Chelwa, G., Cockburn, J., Kassouf, A., McKay, A., & Zurbrigg, J.
(2022). Underrepresentation of developing country researchers in development research.
Applied Economics Letters, 29(17), 1659–1664.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2021.1965528
Azada-Palacios, R. A. (2022). Hybridity and national identity in post-colonial schools.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 54(9), 1431–1441.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2021.1920393
Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 16(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001
Breakspear, S. (2012). The Policy Impact of PISA: An Exploration of the Normative Effects of
International Benchmarking in School System Performance. OECD.
https://doi.org/10.1787/5k9fdfqffr28-en
Bridges, D. (2014). Education Reform and Internationalisation: The Case of School Reform in
Kazakhstan. Cambridge University Press.
Britannica. (2023). World Bank. https://www.britannica.com/topic/World-Bank
Chelwa, G. (2021). Does economics have an ‘Africa problem’? Economy and Society, 50(1), 78–
99. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2021.1841933
Chou, J.-Y., & Camerlink, I. (2021). Online conferences as an opportunity to enhance
inclusiveness in animal behaviour and welfare research: A case study of the ISAE 2020
virtual meeting. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 241, 105369.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105369
Cockerill, M., & Knolls, B. (2008). Open Access to Research for the Developing World.
https://issues.org/cockerill/
Comaroff, J., & Comaroff, J. (2012). Theory from the South: Or, How Euro-America is Evolving
Toward Africa. https://www.routledge.com/Theory-from-the-South-Or-How-Euro-America-
is-Evolving-Toward-Africa/Comaroff-Comaroff/p/book/9781594517655
Cummings, S., & Hoebink, P. (2017). Representation of Academics from Developing Countries as
Authors and Editorial Board Members in Scientific Journals: Does this Matter to the Field of
Development Studies? The European Journal of Development Research, 29(2), 369–383.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-016-0002-2
Dados, N., & Connell, R. (2012). The Global South. Contexts, 11(1), 12–13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1536504212436479
Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Ahimbisibwe, J., Van Moll, R., & Koedam, N. (2003). Neo-colonial science
by the most industrialised upon the least developed countries in peer-reviewed publishing.
Scientometrics, 56(3), 329–343. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022374703178
Das, J., Do, Q.-T., Shaines, K., & Srikant, S. (2013). U.S. and them: The Geography of Academic
Research. Journal of Development Economics, 105, 112–130.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2013.07.010
Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world.
Princeton University Press.
Ferguson, G., Pérez-Llantada, C., & Plo, R. (2011). English as an international language of
scientific publication: A study of attitudes. World Englishes, 30(1), 41–59.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2010.01656.x
Fernández Polo, F. J., & Cal Varela, M. (2009). English for research purposes at the University of
Santiago de Compostela: A survey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(3), 152–
164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.05.003
Ghosh, B. N. (2001). Dependency Theory Revisited. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315187389
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
40
Girvan, N. (2007). Power Imbalances and Development Knowledge. University of the West Indies.
Global South. Obo. Retrieved from
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780190221911/obo-
9780190221911-0055.xml
Graham, M., Hale, S., & Stephens, M. (2011). The Location of Academic Knowledge. Information
Geographies. https://geography.oii.ox.ac.uk/the-location-of-academic-knowledge/
Haug, S. (2021). Mainstreaming South-South and triangular cooperation: Work in progress at the
United Nations. Discussion Paper. https://doi.org/10.23661/DP15.2021
Horner, R. (2020). Towards a new paradigm of global development? Beyond the limits of
international development. Progress in Human Geography, 44(3), 415–436.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132519836158
Hyland, K. (2016). Language myths and publishing mysteries: A response to Politzer-Ahles et al.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, 9–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.09.001
Kalter, C. (2017). From global to local and back: The ‘Third World’ concept and the new radical
left in France. Journal of Global History, 12(1), 115–136.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S174002281600036X
Klees, S. J. (2012). World Bank and Education. In S. J. Klees, J. Samoff, & N. P. Stromquist
(Eds.), The World Bank and Education: Critiques and Alternatives (pp. 49–65).
SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-903-9_4
Kothari, U. (2005). A Radical History of Development Studies: Individuals, Institutions and
Ideologies. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Lawson, V. (2007). Making Development Geography.
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780203764176/making-development-
geography-victoria-lawson-victoria-lawson
Lindén, T. S. (2010). Kerstin Martens and Anja P. Jakobi (eds): Mechanisms of OECD
Governance: International Incentives for National Policy Making? Oxford, Oxford University
Press. Journal of European Social Policy, 21(4), 382–383.
https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287110210040702
Mahler, A. G. (2015). The Global South in the Belly of the Beast: Viewing African American Civil
Rights through a Tricontinental Lens.
https://www.academia.edu/11443361/_The_Global_South_in_the_Belly_of_the_Beast_View
ing_African_American_Civil_Rights_through_a_Tricontinental_Lens_Latin_American_Rese
arch_Review_2015_50_1_95_116
Mahler, A. G. (2017). Global South.
https://www.academia.edu/34955961/_Global_South_Oxford_Bibliographies_in_Literary_an
d_Critical_Theory_ed_Eugene_OBrien_New_York_Oxford_University_Press_2017
Malisa, M., & Missedja, T. Q. (2019). Schooled for Servitude: The Education of African Children
in British Colonies, 1910–1990. Genealogy, 3(3), Article 3.
https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy3030040
Martín, P., Rey-Rocha, J., Burgess, S., & Moreno, A. I. (2014). Publishing research in English-
language journals: Attitudes, strategies and difficulties of multilingual scholars of medicine.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 16, 57–67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.08.001
Maxwell, S., & de Haan, A. (1998). Editorial: Poverty and Social Exclusion in North and South.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1759-5436.1998.mp29001001.x
Mweru, M. (2010). Why Kenyan academics do not publish in international refereed journals—
UNESCO Digital Library. Retrieved from
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000211754
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
41
Niner, H. J., & Wassermann, S. N. (2021). Better for Whom? Leveling the Injustices of
International Conferences by Moving Online. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.638025
NORRAG. (2023). About #TheSouthAlsoKnows. https://www.norrag.org/about-the-south-also-
knows/
OECD. (2022). Organisational structure. https://www.oecd.org/about/structure/
OECD. (2023). List of OECD Member countries.
https://www.oecd.org/about/document/ratification-oecd-convention.htm
Parncutt, R., Lindborg, P., Meyer-Kahlen, N., & Timmers, R. (2021). The Multi-hub Academic
Conference: Global, Inclusive, Culturally Diverse, Creative, Sustainable. Frontiers in
Research Metrics and Analytics, 6, 699782. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2021.699782
Piro, J. (2019). The Primacy of PISA: How the World’s Most Important Test Is Changing
Education Globally. https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498578509/The-Primacy-of-PISA-How-
the-World’s-Most-Important-Test-Is-Changing-Education-Globally
Puccinelli, E., Zeppilli, D., Stefanoudis, P. V., Wittische-Helou, A., Kermorgant, M., Fuchs, S.,
Menot, L., Easton, E. E., & Weber, A. A.-T. (2022). Hybrid conferences: Opportunities,
challenges and ways forward. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9, 902772.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.902772
Radcliffe, S. (2005). Development and geography: Towards a postcolonial development
geography? https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1191/0309132505ph548pr
Said, E. (1985). Orientalism reconsidered.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/030639688502700201
Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism (1st Vintage Books ed). Vintage Books.
Sarabipour, S. (2020). Virtual conferences raise standards for accessibility and interactions. ELife,
9, e62668. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62668
Sarabipour, S., Khan, A., Seah, Y. F. S., Mwakilili, A. D., Mumoki, F. N., Sáez, P. J.,
Schwessinger, B., Debat, H. J., & Mestrovic, T. (2021). Changing scientific meetings for the
better. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01067-
y
Sarmurzin, Y., Amanzhol, N., Toleubayeva, K., Zhunusova, M., & Amanova, A. (2021). The
impact of OECD research on the education system of Kazakhstan. Asia Pacific Education
Review, 22(4), 757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-021-09715-8
Satpathy, S. (2009). Southern postcolonialisms: The global south and the “new” literary
representations. Routledge.
Schleicher, A. (2007). Can competencies assessed by PISA be considered the fundamental school
knowledge 15-year-olds should possess? Journal of Educational Change, 8(4), 349–357.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-007-9042-x
Seitzer, H., Niemann, D., & Martens, K. (2021). Placing PISA in perspective: The OECD’s multi-
centric view on education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 19(2), 198–212.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2021.1878017
Sharp, J. (2009). Geographies of Postcolonialism: Spaces of Power and Representation.
https://sk.sagepub.com/books/geographies-of-postcolonialism
Shultz, L., & Viczko, M. (2021). What are we saving? Tracing governing knowledge and truth
discourse in global COVID-19 policy responses. International Review of Education, 67(1),
219–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-021-09893-y
Skiles, M., Yang, E., Reshef, O., Muñoz, D. R., Cintron, D., Lind, M. L., Rush, A., Calleja, P. P.,
Nerenberg, R., Armani, A., M. Faust, K., & Kumar, M. (2022). Conference demographics
and footprint changed by virtual platforms. Nature Sustainability, 5(2), Article 2.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00823-2
P 136 - CH-1211 Genève 21 | +41 22 908 57 00 | graduateinstitute.ch
42
Smith, D. H., & Sargent, T. C. (2022). Postcolonial Perspectives of International Educational
Development Interventions in Countries of the Global South. In A. W. Wiseman (Ed.),
Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2021 (Vol. 42B, pp. 99–118).
Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-36792022000042B006
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827
Tijssen, R. (2007). Africa’s contribution to the worldwide research literature: New analytical
perspectives, trends, and performance indicators. Scientometrics, 71(2), 303–327.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1658-3
Tracing the sub-national effect of the OECD PISA: Integration into Canada’s decentralized
education system—Clara Morgan, 2016. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1468018115571420
UNESCO. (2021). Global education monitoring report, 2021/2: Non-state actors in education:
Who chooses? Who loses? https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379875
UNESCO-IBE. (2015). The IBE Council. International Bureau of Education.
https://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/ibe-council
UNESCO-IBE. (2023). What we do. International Bureau of Education.
https://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/what-we-do
Vihriälä, A., & Konttinen, P. N. (2014). Enhancing Southern Voices in Global Education. Kepa
Ry.
Volante, L., Fazio, X., & Ritzen, J. (2017). The OECD and Educational Policy Reform:
International Surveys, Governance, and Policy Evidence.
https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjeap/article/view/16325
World Bank. (2023). Boards of Directors. World Bank.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/about/leadership/directors
World Bank. (2022). Organization. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/about/leadership
Wu, J., Rajesh, A., Huang, Y.-N., Chhugani, K., Acharya, R., Peng, K., Johnson, R. D., Fiscutean,
A., Robles-Espinoza, C. D., De La Vega, F. M., Bao, R., & Mangul, S. (2022). Virtual
meetings promise to eliminate geographical and administrative barriers and increase
accessibility, diversity and inclusivity. Nature Biotechnology, 40(1), Article 1.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-01176-z
Xiaomin, L., & Auld, E. (2020). A historical perspective on the OECD’s ‘humanitarian turn’:
PISA for Development and the Learning Framework 2030. Comparative Education, 56(4),
503–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2020.1781397
Zhao, Y. (2020). Two decades of havoc: A synthesis of criticism against PISA. Journal of
Educational Change, 21(2), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09367-x
Zurn, M. (2014). The politicization of world politics and its effects: Eight propositions.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-political-science-
review/article/abs/politicization-of-world-politics-and-its-effects-eight-
propositions/2560A1AC80CF4ECFCE3BDB0F99B392B0
